Feeding a little one seems like a more complex landscape than it used to be, given questions about how necessary it is to buy organic, the safety of some meats and genetically modified foods, the affects of our diets on the environment, and the intentions and marketing behind some packaged baby foods.
In my efforts to raise a healthy, happy eater, Sweet Pea is a place to share information, offer thoughts, ask questions, document the process of trying to raise a smarter vegetarian than I ever was and, I hope, to remain mindful of enjoying it all.
I'm the author of "The Gastronomy of Marriage" and a freelance writer in Brooklyn, N.Y., where I spend my time cooking, eating, running, writing, Tweeting (@MichelleMaisto) and struggling to learn Mandarin.

Do Shoppers Want an iPhone App or Simpler Grocery Labels?

A shopping cart filled with bagged groceries located in a parking lot (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Coca-Cola, Kraft and Kellogg are among the major brands considering a smartphone application that could help consumers make more-informed decisions on their travels down grocery store aisles. Shoppers, it’s believed, want a lot more information than can fit on a label.

The Food Information Transparency Initiative (FITI) is a joint project of Orange House, a Belgium-based social justice nonprofit, and a handful of European groups with something to win or lose, or else clients with the latter. Last week, FITI supporters met to discuss the content that a FITI application — which was developed late last year but reportedly still needs much work — would include, how to come to a code of ethics all involved parties can agree on, and what the initial product focus should be, according to a Mar. 21 report from Food Navigator.

“Comprehensive, truthful and unambiguous labeling is fundamental to informed consumer choice. Food information must be understandable,” states the official report on FITI’s introductory event in Nov. 2011.

An executive from Coca Cola Europe, the report added, “put forward that food information must be reliable, credible and science-based.”

The reported continued:

Mr Freek Van Eijk, IT expert at Caesar Experts demonstrated … how a plethora of food information would be accessible through a smartphone, supermarket scanner or home computer. This would include: ingredients, nutrition, safety, health aspects, origin of ingredients, production and processing details, environmental aspects, ethical considerations (such as child labour, animal welfare), packaging details, storage and use conditions and shelf life. Freek van Eijk also demonstrated that the application can be personalised, i.e., information most relevant to the consumer will appears first on the smartphone. He clarified that the possibilities to present information are in fact almost endless. New information items which could be considered include: the carbon footprint of the product and a sustainability index.

It’s tempting to imagine market aisles full of motionless shoppers, each, with eyebrows-furrowed, combing through the above-described data with the meticulousness of the diners in a popular Portlandia skit who want more details about the chicken they may order for dinner.

“[Did he have] a lot of friends? Other chickens as friends? Putting his little wing around another one and kind of like paling around?” the male diner asks, concerned, after being handed a profile on the chicken, whose name was Collin.

It also sounds like a good deal of work for consumers, as well as a way for brands to add their spin to a product — the report notes that it took the EU eight years to reach a consensus on its new Food Information Regulation, “illustrating that food information is a controversial issue and that the interests of the various stakeholders range from one end of the spectrum (only the bare minimum) to the other (tell it all).”

In the United States, as much of an issue as what we don’t know — genetically modified foods come to mind — is making sense of the information already available to us.

General Mills recently reacted to a lawsuit from a California woman who claimed the company was trying to pass off junk food as healthy snacks. GM contends that statements emblazoned on its boxes, such as “Made With Real Fruit,” aren’t the equivalent of calling its Fruit Roll-Ups healthy, since such statements “are not likely to deceive a reasonable customer.” (Does this mean, put another way, that a reasonable person shouldn’t be deceived by the ruse?)

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.